In 1942 President FDR – husband to social justice hero Eleanor Roosevelt, signed an executive order that forcefully removed law-abiding Japanese-Americans from their homes and put them in prison camps. There was little outcry. In the 1970s, our government, along with medical doctors forced African American men to endure late stage syphilis just to see what would happen. Few with knowledge of this objected. America history began with violently removing the native people. Ardent abolitionists of the 1800’s opposed giving women the right to vote, and today there are caring people who staunchly support civil rights for people of color but oppose marriage equality for LGBTQ identifying individuals. In the book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, we learn that a large American hospital in the 1950’s injected cancer cells into hundreds of patients without consent, and the only people to object were three Jewish doctors – whose views were marginalized as being, “overly sensitive,” due to the Holocaust having just happened. History is full of similar examples prompting Albert Einstein to say, “The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

One of the most egregious examples of the human capacity to look away and disregard injustice against others is the Holocaust, which prompted us to ask, “how did so many, “normal” people allow such a thing to happen?” The classic experiment by Stanley Milgram sought to answer this, and suggested that over half of us will go along with things that we know harm others if environmental conditions are right, saying, “Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process." However, some cultures (and by implication their cultural practices) appear to be less vulnerable to this phenomenon. So it’s worth asking ourselves...What can we do, to promote compassion and foster conditions that make individuals less likely to ignore injustice, and more able to put ourselves in the position of others so that we won’t, “look on and do nothing” when injustice is threatening someone else?

While increasingly the main vote we have is how we spend our dollars, the power of veganism is not due to its boycott of violently produced consumer goods. Rather it is the ripple effect that results each time one of us stands firmly in solidarity with justice, nonviolence and compassion. This inspires those around us to consider their own choice of where to stand. Every major human caused tragedy that has ever plagued the world, was enabled to occur for one main reason: Human beings have the capacity to ignore injustice happening to those we have been taught to, “otherize.” Throughout human history, no group has been more victimized and exploited by this phenomenon than the non-human beings that we eat, hunt, experiment on and use for our entertainment. With BILLIONS of thinking feeling, “others” tortured and killed every year.​By embracing a vegan ethic, three times a day, we participate in an activity that seeks to prevent our complicity in violence and exploitation against the vulnerable, and actually changes brains in ways likely to create more peace and justice in the world. (According to neuroscience research, our thoughts and actions alter brain structure in ways that make it more likely we will have more thoughts and engage in more actions along the same lines.) The example of how we live each day – by modeling a conviction to practice non-violence and compassion for the most vulnerable in our diet, and in what we buy and wear, may be the single most powerful action any of us can take at this time in history. Furthermore, if those in power are successful in drilling more, and thwarting US actions to reduce worldwide carbon emissions, by becoming vegan, we reduce our own carbon and water footprint enormously – but even more important the example we set has a huge ripple effect that could be powerful!

We don’t know what the next few years will bring, that’s why now, more than ever before, becoming vegan matters. Please join this peaceful revolution.

Click HERE for a downloadable PDF of this essay that you can print and share with others.

Back when I was allowed to table at the Kaw Valley Seed Fair, where I gave away hundreds of free vegan food samples and literature (You can read about how I was disinvited from this yearly event HERE) one of my most memorable encounters was with a couple of young women just barely out of their teens. These women, one of whom indicated she had been vegan at one point, told me with earnest conviction that as a result of interning on a small local farm, they now ate animals and no longer found it uncomfortable because they had, “Made peace” with killing them.

Just let those words sink in for a moment.

Amidst floods of people wanting to sample our food and get information, I failed to ask these individuals, one very important question…

“How do you know that your current view justifying eating animals (or their bodily excretions) is truly consistent with your core values about justice, compassion and nonviolence; how do you know that you have just not become desensitized to culturally condoned injustices and violence? (and thus without realizing it have adopted the dominant cultural ideology of the oppressors)?”

Cross cultural anthropology gives insight to the immense pressure humans experience when we attempt to vary from traditions/social norms. We are all profoundly impacted by this.

I suspect these young people who are “at peace with killing” probably consider themselves to be on the forefront of embracing social justice, environmental justice, and abhor “isms” like racism, hetero-centrism, classism, sexism -- so why don't they also abhor speciesism? Like me, they probably seek to promote non-violence and expand its embrace as widely as possible. Yet history shows that those who care deeply about trying to do what is right can have blind spots to other injustices. The World Anti-Slavery Convention in 1840 voted to exclude women from participating and made female delegates sit separate upstairs. Likewise today, some who endorse civil rights for people of color are actively working to withhold those same rights from those who don’t fit our culture’s traditional sexual binary.

It is not possible to feed 7 billion humans on this planet a diet based upon meat or dairy — and have a livable planet for long. Eating animals is NOT necessary for our survival and contributes enormously to human disability. (Cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, dementia, some cancers and kidney disease all increase as populations eat more animal foods.) Animal agriculture wastes resources, and destabilizes the very environment we all depend upon to survive. Even one of the best examples of supposedly sustainable animal farming — Polyface Farms — is not capable of sustaining all the animals it raises without importing feed grown elsewhere!

Few recognize that the alternatives to industrial production of meat, dairy and eggs, are even more classist (but attractive to those who can afford to pay more in order to let their conscience go back to sleep.) It takes more land, water and energy to provide the same calories eating animals as opposed to just eating the plants (they would eat) directly.

YET EVEN MORE LAND is required using “grass-fed” systems because grass-fed animals grow more slowly and live longer (emitting more methane too!) before humans kill and eat them. To make matters worse, some alfalfa used to feed grass-fed animals in the winter, comes from water-depleted California —further stressing aquifers because alfalfa is one of the most water-consuming crops there is!

But most problematic is that small farms claiming to be “humane” further our societal desensitization. It used to be that when people recognized the similarity of animals they love (pets) to animals they eat, they tended to feel disgust at eating meat. But now those with relationships with small “humane farms” increasingly tell me — they see no problem with eating dogs and cats either! (This is consistent with theories suggesting compassion for animals grew as people moved to cities -- because those living on small farms were desensitized and viewed their very survival as dependent upon enslaving and killing animals -- Like privileged southern Whites of the 1700s who couldn’t see the injustice of slavery.) Growing up on a farm, and being taught that using animals is necessary to survive, can make it hard to SEE the injustice of exploiting other beings— whose interest in living their own lives is quite obviously like ours!

Non-industrial animal farming diverts people who might be ripe to open their hearts and shun the violence altogether, to embracing and ignoring violence when specific rituals are practiced. (“We kill them with such respect”) many have told me. It reinforces a hierarchical exploitative paradigm (the status quo) which actively perpetuates the major challenges currently facing humanity.

You can cherry pick instances where animal agriculture, does not use tons of water, cause devastating pollution, consume excessive energy and contribute to global food insecurity. But those exceptions evaporate if more than a tiny number of humans try to do it. Even though people struggling to find enough to eat, may enhance their survival by eating animals, that does not justify those of us with abundant food options deliberately exploiting other beings, tearing their families and social groups apart, removing body parts without anesthetic or ending their lives prematurely, simply for our pleasure.

Pythagoras, Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Louisa May Alcott, The Buddha Henry David Thorough, and Thomas Edison all suggested that as we evolve morally, humanity will come to abhor barbaric and violent traditions that allow us to turn a blind eye to injustices against other sentient beings. So let’s keep moving forward.

(Note from JoAnn -- this essay is an updated version of one I wrote a couple of years back.)

When I was making good money working in the corporate world, I had little time to work for good causes. So I put more emphasis upon donating to charities, and hoping that my charitable donations were actually being used in constructive ways. But there is growing evidence that many non-profits not only spend egregious amounts on, "administrative costs," but actually facilitate activity that donors would find disturbing if they were fully aware of what was going on. So increasingly we rely upon third parties to tell us WHICH charities are best. But what happens when those charity evaluators are corrupt?

This 8 min video by Shark shows shocking conflicts of interest are present in Animal Charity Evaluators and their top-selected charities, and one central figure -- a well-known, well-respected figure in the Animal Protection Movement appears to be the common denominator with all of these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3inYlGkFNv0This group called, ACE (Animal Charity Evaluators) tabled at AR last weekend and was actively promoting the idea that people should ONLY give money to ACE's top 3 animal charities in order to have their money do the most good. They had a slick brochure they were passing out that made them look very credible in evaluating WHICH charities were worth giving to. But without critical thinking, those reading this brochure would fail to realize it was essentially using the standard marketing trick I was trained to use when I worked in the corporate sector: reframing the issue to emphasize THEIR criteria. Furthermore, upon closer scrutiny ACE's criteria, which they suggest come from published research, rely too much upon assumptions and bias rather then truly quantifiable facts.

While I think the Shark video linked above is excellent and makes many important points, I totally disagree with their suggestions for reforming and rehabilitating ACE. The evidence presented suggests that this group is so profoundly corrupt --that nothing short of its complete dissolution would be an appropriate response. Further the facts presented lend even more credence to suggestions that I have been hearing for some time, that the top three groups that ACE seeks to enrich: Mercy For Animals, The Humane League, and The Good Food Institute Are also too entangled with this corruption for any person of conscience to support them.

For a more in-depth look at this issue, please be sure to read my previous post.

When I heard that a new group, Voices for Animals Kansas City (VFAKC) was planning to host Kansas City's first VegFest, I was thrilled. Although it seemed odd that they didn't reach out to the longest running animal right's group in the area, Animal Outreach of Kansas, and invite them to participate, I didn't start to have concerns until AOK's founder, Judy Carman inquired about tabling at the Vegfest and was informed that to have a table would cost her 300.00 dollars -- the same as for food vendors, even though she wasn't selling anything, and didn't have that kind of budget. My concerns grew when I found out HSUS and Whole Foods (one of the largest meat retailers in the US.) were both sponsors.

How would messaging at the vegfest be impacted by its sponsors?

Sponsors provide money expecting to get something. Non-profits typically sponsor expecting to expand membership and increase revenue. In the case of VFAKC's Vegfest --- HSUS wasn't just a sponsor, but also provided one of the speakers -- Paul Shapiro.

KC's first VegFest was free and open to the public, and my family went and mingled with other attendees. Our intent was to support and promote veganism by talking with others. When we talked with non-vegans, we shared literature that encouraged veganism. When attendees told us that they were already vegan, we discussed the issue of co-option within the movement and provided them the flyer pictured above (front) and below (back).

Overwhelmingly the people we met expressed gratitude that we were raising awareness of this issue. At no point were we loud or disruptive in any way. We simply spoke respectfully one on one with individuals, and heard no objections.

But in weeks following the Vegfest we heard from a number of people that the Vegfest's main organizer, Dave Swarts, was upset when he learned after the fact that we had been providing this literature to people and he was seeking to block us from attending next year's Vegfest. Dave told others (incorrectly) that we were distributing "Humane Watch" literature. Humane Watch is a well-known front group for animal exploiting industries, that also is very critical of HSUS. Mischaracterizing our hand-out and the website it linked to in this way, may cause those supportive of HSUS to not even look into the substance of what we were saying. After hearing how upset Dave was and that our actions were being misconstrued, my daughter reached out with an email to Dave asking to set up a phone call to discuss what happened, hoping that they could better understand each other's perspective.

12 days later, Dave Swarts replied to my daughter with the following emailed statement and he copied me too:

It is ironic that Dave used the words, "conflict with our brand" in his statement. If we are both working to help animals, why would his biggest expressed concern be his "brand"? Perhaps this definition of co-option HEREcan shed some light:

When the vegan movement began in 1944 with the coining of the word, "vegan," it was clearly defined as the exclusion of all forms of exploitation of animals. Keep in mind -- factory farms were not yet known. Nearly all animals were raised on family farms like those being promoted as "humane" by organizations like HSUS.

I've been vegan over 25 years and have witnessed messaging from large animal advocacy groups changing in a disturbing way. Groups, that once advocated for justice for animals, are suddenly steering the conversation away from promoting veganism to endorsing meat, dairy and eggs from farms they now refer to as, "humane," in some cases even giving their stamp of approval as with the infamous Whole Foods Letter, or when Peta gave an award to Temple Grandin for designing a "humane" slaughterhouse. To put that in perspective, consider what would be the public's reaction if Amnesty International gave an award to a dictator for jailing dissidents in more comfortable jails and feeding them a great meal before killing them by lethal injection, instead of a firing squad? Should animal advocates publicly applaud baby steps that still perpetrate violent injustice against animals? How would you feel if Amnesty International suggested that the less terrible dictators were our allies in the struggle against the most horrific dictators?

Now juxtapose that scenario with a real conversation that occurred on a vegan Kansas City Facebook group, when a new vegan, expressed interest in holding a vigil in front of a small local slaughterhouse to raise awareness. The new vegan asked if anyone knew where local slaughterhouses were, and Dave tried to dissuade this individual by suggesting that these slaughterhouses were, "allies" with vegans who work to raise awareness about the injustice of exploiting animals:​

​What does it mean if we begin to ally with those who are profiting off of the exploitation and killing of animals? What is left of our movement, if we are no longer clearly opposed to exploitation and killing of other beings? What does that make our movement a movement for?

​Does messaging matter?

One of the speakers at KC's VegFest was Paul Shapiro, a VP at HSUS. As a segue to his endorsement of cultured meat, (Which I have raised concerns about in my post, Cultured Meat, Yellow Rice, Cage Free Eggs, Have YOU Been Duped?) Paul told the audience a tall-tale about how whales benefitted from the transition from whale oil lamps popular in the 1800s to kerosene lamps -- a tale that I have deconstructed in my post, Dangerous Myths that Threaten Animals. Paul used that tale as a metaphor for why people who care about animals should now endorse cultured meat.

Paul also made the following Orwellian statement while on stage:

"We should accept that not all animal raising is the same...In fact if all animals were raised that way [on small farms] we might go do something else with our lives...because there'd be maybe bigger problems." --Paul Shapiro HSUS VP​

Why is VFAKC providing a platform for sentiments contrary to real justice for animals? I shudder to think how this messaging (which also included suggesting that ethically, its better to eat beef than chicken) might have influenced attendees. How many people on the verge of considering veganism -- because a vegan spokesperson/leader suggested that embracing or working for "humane" meat/dairy/eggs is a morally acceptable alternative to veganism, will now become consumers of, "happy meat?" instead of embracing veganism? Might this translate into economic benefits for sponsors like Whole Foods and HSUS?

​IF you are involved with the group Voices for Animals -- or for that matter, ANY group that is partnering with entities which might present a conflict of interest, I urge you to speak up and raise awareness. Go to their events and dialogue with others who attend. If you are not sure what constitutes a conflict of interest, Tribe of Heart Defined it Here:

Who is VFAKC advocating for -- the animals or their sponsors?

PLEASE do all you can to keep the conversation about industry co-option of grass-roots animal advocacy alive! If you attend VFAKC events, make sure others there know what is taking place and share information. Share this post on your social media, email it to friends who may not be on FB. Print out some of the articles that I have linked to and share them with others. The animals need us to speak up!

In this age of reductionist sound bites, fake news, and viral stories, I'd like to address one of the myths that some animal advocates have been touting. Stories matter. They may foster beliefs which can lead us to support actions that are actually harmful.

Multiple stories being told now support the idea, that when it comes to helping animals, historically, technology has done more to decrease harm to animals than anything else, so we who care about animals, should emphasize and support new technologies that might decrease animal exploitation over and above discussing ethics and justice if we want to do the most good.

So one story describes how whaling, which in the 1800's was the major source of fuel for oil lamps throughout the US, began a dramatic decline in the 1850's because kerosene suddenly became available. The takeaway message we are being told, is that the fossil fuel industry (and the new technology it enabled) was great for whales. This story is being used to encourage animal advocates to support the cultured meat industry (a new technology -- but one which also currently requires animal slaughter -- but not as much compared to obtaining meat from a live animal) and the story tellers say is the best hope of reducing harms to animals. Some well-known vegans, employed by large non-profits are devoting their time and resources to promoting cultured meat over and above working to shift the cultural paradigm through authentic vegan advocacy.

So let's take a closer look at the facts. Was the discovery and widespread adoption of petroleum based fuels really beneficial to whales?

It's estimated that 236,000 whales were killed by humans in the entire 19th century -- (a span of 100 years) which included 1846 -- considered the year of, "Peak whale oil." Compare that number to the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil spills are a repeat consequence of obtaining petroleum. This single incident was estimated to have killed 25,000 marine mammals. And while most of those individuals were not whales -- that number is just a fraction of all the animals that perished from this accident. But more to the point an article in Nature suggests that in the century beginning a full 50 years AFTER the introduction of kerosene, (that is from 1900 to 2000) the whale genocide caused by humans was 3,000,000. That's a ten-fold increase a full 50 years after the introduction of a technology, that we are now being told was hugely beneficial to these creatures, and the justification for why we should now embrace cultured meat technology, which as it stands right now, has known ethically problematic aspects.

if you want real justice or to meaningfully reduce exploitation and violence of other beings, go vegan and work to raise awareness about veganism as a moral baseline. Most of us already agree that it is wrong to hurt animals unnecessarily, and here in America today, we don't need to intentionally harm other beings in order to live.